America vs the World

In the documentary “Critical Care: America vs the World,” journalist and filmmaker T.R. Reid examines how four countries (the UK, France, Japan, and Germany) achieve universal healthcare for less money with better outcomes than what is offered in the United States. He interviews patients and doctors in each country to gain insight into their health care systems as well as why they have them in place. Through his interviews he reveals that all four countries have a single-payer system where everyone pays taxes to finance public insurance but are free to choose their own doctor or hospital while enjoying access to cutting-edge treatments. Reid’s point of view on this issue is clear—he believes that it is outrageous that so many Americans do not have health insurance or access to quality medical care due to financial constraints while other wealthy nations can provide such services at lower costs with better outcomes. He argues that this discrepancy between the U.S and other developed nations is rooted in a lack of political will from policymakers who fail to enact reforms designed to improve access for all Americans regardless of socio-economic status or race/ethnicity. His argument implies an ethical perspective since he suggests that providing health care should be considered a human right rather than a privilege reserved only for those who can afford it; essentially arguing for fairness within our society by recognizing healthcare as fundamental part of life which requires sufficient funding from our government so no one gets left behind due its costliness or difficulty accessing resources needed . The ethical implications raised by Reid’s viewpoint are numerous - from individual autonomy, justice and equity ,to questions about responsibility , caring and morality overall . The idea of ensuring quality medical care for all citizens regardless of income level speaks directly towards moral obligation – insisting everyone deserves access despite any potential inequalities such as age, gender identity etc.. This theorizing also ties closely into underlying theories we have discussed throughout class regarding ‘moral justification’– meaning if enough people believe something (in this case providing equal accessible healthcare) then it must be morally acceptable & justifiable way forward even if there are cases where implementation would require difficult decisions around enforcing laws on individuals or companies deemed non compliant / resistant Personally speaking I agree with Reid's point of view – I strongly support idea that every American citizen should be entitled basic standard healthcare regardless economic status . Its simply not fair some will go without coverage because cannot afford private plans & ultimately lead fewer options when come time seeking treatment thus creating inequality gap between classes further widening divide across US population . We need sensible policies backed up research prove out effectiveness before taking action ensure every American treated equally & fairly regardless personal background In my opinion its fundamental aspect democracy true sense - insuring adequate protections put place combat issues such poverty stigma discrimination based upon socio economic factors beyond ones control It only makes good fiscal sense invest now cutting edge preventative services rather than wait incur more costly long term damages later down line therefore making sound investment future generations guaranteeing healthier lives us & those follow

Sample Solution

The speaker’s point of view of the PBS News Hour special “Critical Care: America vs the World” is that there are alternative ways to provide universal health care which could be a better option than what is currently practiced in the United States. Specifically, he examines how four other nations have developed systems which provide access to health care by utilizing government-regulated insurance plans, limiting drug costs and providing coverage for pre-existing conditions more cheaply than American counterparts while also achieving significantly better outcomes. The speaker does appear biased towards this topic as he speaks with an underlying tone of frustration that political obstacles such as lobbying and red tape in Washington have prevented similar initiatives from being implemented domestically despite their potential benefits. He also acknowledges his bias by stating that he has personally witnessed some of these successful systems in action during his travels abroad, suggesting a level of personal investment into advocating for change. Despite this bias, however, it remains clear that there are viable alternatives out there when it comes to providing quality and affordable healthcare services, making the speaker's argument difficult to refute.